- Luke Hobbs
- Brisbane
- Australia
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Just curious, but why do "creationism" and "evolution" have to be different? Could it not just be God's will to have us evolve?
Everything needs a process, you can't just turn the Moon into a rubber duck at the snap of a finger. So why is it so bad for religious bodies, especially the American Christian Club, to look at evolution? Children are being taught the "Loch Ness Monster is real and thus disproves evolution" doesn't seem logical at all. Just because one cake takes 10 minutes to bake doesn't mean all cakes are that quick...
Mark Meijer 100+
==============================
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.
What if life is, in a manner of speaking, designed through the process of evolution, which is an expression of the intelligence that is intrinsic in the universe as a self-organizing system? In the big picture, no inherent randomness is involved, and no external creator (as separate from the creation) is involved. Note that the term "self-organizing system" is a familiar one in artificial intelligence lingo. Please discuss (no pettiness please).
==============================
Please don't discuss.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Depends how you define intelligence or an intelligence.
Is this "intelligence" self aware and purposeful or some other definition.
Depends how you define design.
What you describe is kind of what I believe happened, but I don't ascribe meaning to it in the way you do.
If we rolled the dice again, I'm not sure we would end up with exactly the same universe.
Mark Meijer 100+
As for rolling the dice again, you're still thinking of existence as having a start. But it's not possible to reroll, not even meaningful to hypothesize it, who knows what would happen, it just doesn't make sense. Existence is ongoing and has no rewind or play again button. There are no alternate histories to compare.
What I meant by there being no inherent randomness involved, is simply that even seemingly random things occur only in the presence of, and according to, certain preconditions. This interdependence of any occurance on other occurances reaches out and eventually includes the whole of existence. So randomness only seems random when you're looking at only part of the picture and don't consider what gave rise to the seemingly random event.
For example what is random about mutation? From the perspective of the theoretical model of evolution, mutation is triggered by outside factors that are for all intents and purposes random. But true randomness would mean that things can happen that are completely independent from other causes and conditions, which is absurd. If a mutation occured due to a transcription error, something caused the error. If it occured due to the impact of a particle of radiation, something caused that radiation, etc. And in this way everything hangs together in a huge web of interdependence.
Colleen Steen 500+
Your description Mark, is similar to what I experienced with the NDE/OBE.
Obey, even if we define intelligence or design....or anything else for that matter, we are using human constructs...human understanding...human intelligence. I suggest that there is more and different intelligence than human intelligence. Nature is "intelligent" in a way...is it not? Everything in nature flows and evolves....just as we do....on many different levels.....in my humble perception:>)
I totally agree...things happen naturally in certain conditions. As you say...this interdependence of any occurance on other occurances reaches out and eventually includes the whole of existence...yes....yes....yes!!! Randomness seems random because as humans, we do not have all the information to explain what is happening. I absolutely agree...everything hangs together in a HUGE web of interdependence...much farther than most humans can imagine:>)
Mark Meijer 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
I absolutely believe we have free will...than again...it depends on how one defines "free will". Again we're defining it as we know it as humans, and there may be something different, or something more that we do not understand as humans.
Within the context of evolution, for example, we have free will to take care of our body and mind in certain ways that may increase the rate of our own evolution. So, the natural process of evolution, depending on certain conditions in our world is happening, at the same time as we can evolve in ourself as individuals.
I believe that as we increase the flow of energy in our individual body/mind, we contribute to the whole flowing energy of humankind. Because we are "hanging together in a web of interdependence", does not exclude free will. We are multi dimentional, multi sensory beings, so one concept does not exclude others.
That is one thing that puzzles me about some folks. Because s/he accepts one thought, idea, concept or belief it automatically excludes everything else in that person's mind and heart. I believe that many different concepts can co-exist...we have many more choices than most people are aware of:>)
Mark Meijer 100+
Unless you envision yourself existing as a separate, independent source of action and sink of experience, which of course would immediately cut you off from the rest of existence. So it still doesn't add up. Talk about self-limiting beliefs. Doing away with self-limitation is not about piling up as many concepts as you can possibly manage, compatible or otherwise, but rather about getting rid of every last one of them. All beliefs are limiting, including (or especially) the belief in free will and separate self. I'm curious as to which part of your body/mind you think warrants such special treatment from reality so as to be set entirely aside from it.
Being able to accommodate multiple viewpoints is not the same as being able to hold conflicting beliefs and actually believing all of them. The latter requires that you completely shut off your discrimination and stick your head in the sand, and sets you up for a severe case of cognitive dissonance.
But that said, if you're puzzled about some folks not doing that (or doing it less anyway), then how come you can't reconcile a belief in god with the rest of your beliefs? What is your criterion for accepting a belief? By your own admission not that it has to fit in with the rest of your beliefs. Nor apparently that it has to be plausible or sensible or true (as beliefs go). All I can think of is that it has to make you feel good about yourself and the world. Is that what you mean by increasing the flow of energy? Because if not, I honestly haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Colleen Steen 500+
I reflect back to you an insightful quote from your previous comment...
"It's not to ascribe any particular meaning to it at all, just a way of talking about what is happening...Just plain intelligence as expressed in nature everywhere. Don't go looking for anything magic that isn't really there, just look at what is actually happening and take note of the inherent perfection wheresoever you may be able to see it. That's all a function of existence. I don't mean purpose or meaning, I mean a defacto function. Your own intelligence and your decision to take note of it, should you do so, and anything else you do, is that same function as expressed in you".
Luke Hobbs
So after reading all of these fantastic replies, it seem to me that there is one basic principle to all of this, one which the Ancient Chinese happened to call Taoism: the universe is a mass of energies all containing different densities and properties. Sometime these energies combine to create life, and life being it's own mass of energy, continues to evolve and shape itself in accordance with the surrounding energies.
Here's a thought: Given that the Sun is a massive source of (and I'm not sure I read this right) nuclear energy, could it not be that we are naturally trying to equate ourselves with the Sun's properties by creating a nuclear Earth?
Stewart Gault 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Lejan . 30+
I believe if there is or was a creator who started evolution I would reconsider the moon / rubber duck phenomenon ... ;o)
Roy Bourque 20+
When the Europeans went to America, nearly 90% of the native people died from disease. How many did the black death take out? How many died from barbaric wars? At the time that these passages were written, that is how nature was regarded. We live in a much different world then they did. We need to consider that when we interpret what they wrote. They wrote how they saw the powers of creation in their day.
The idea that God is all powerful and all knowing comes from the mystical glimpse into the power of creation. I have had such a glimpse and I can understand why they felt that God is all powerful and all knowing. But that doesn't stop the world from being a crazy place. Many test the rules of nature to their own demise. It happened then and it is still going on. That is why we have police, to try and stop people from killing themselves and each other.
John Dunbar 10+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin
To me, the above posted link throws Genesis out the window if the facile answers to life's mysteries don't already raise questions.
Roy Bourque 20+
God's will is reductionism is reverse. As the universe unfolds, it goes through creative processes. Those creative processes are guided by the laws of nature. Why they exist, no one knows. We only know how they operate and what they do as time proceeds. Quantum fields are the source from which all things come and back to where they go. Quantum fields are what is doing the creating.
Evolution is upward causation manifesting itself. It is a creative process. What controls it goes back to quantum fields. They establish the code that makes atoms. They establish the code that sets chemistry in motion. They alone determine what is possible and what isn't. Our understanding of them is what allows us to do anything.
All the arguments against religion go back to religion's failure to understand what God is. We have definitions and descriptions of God based on anthropomorphic reasoning. None of them are correct. Quantum fields are correct, but they are not part of the definition of God. They need to be if we are going to get this problem solved. They are everywhere. They are invisible. They are what is doing the creating. It's a no-brainer to me, but I can't seem to get anyone else to see it.
John Dunbar 10+
Roy Bourque 20+
my assertion comes from a religious experience I had when I was meditating on God at the age of nine. What was revealed to me can easily be explained in terms of quantum fields, although I had never been introduced to the subject prior to that experience. It would be eleven years before I came to learn of quantum fields and I realized that I was seeing the same thing in scientific terms.
What God is, and what religion claims God to be are worlds apart. In the ancient world, religious claims were all built on associations. That is how the right hemisphere of the brain sees things. As such, the creative forces of nature, which are singular at the quantum level, were seen as a creator. There is no truth to a God who has human qualities. But the idea that we can have a personal encounter with the forces of creation is a strong belief in Eastern philosophy, and my experience helps me to understand how they could have come to that conclusion. All our creativity comes from an intuitive bond with what drives creation. I and the father are one is how Jesus put it, and many have had such an experience even if they don't see it in the same light.
Roy Bourque 20+
responding to your comment to my reply to Edward;
You may be right about the word "rebellion" being used to control the masses, but in the ancient world, that is how they viewed the power of nature. Nature is very unforgiving to those who ignore their principles (even today). So death and destruction come to those who rebel against the forces of nature, which is where they got the idea.
As far as the obvious cultural gap, it works both ways. They saw things entirely different than we do. In their day, they saw all things as a function of God because God and nature were entwined. I don't know if their mystics saw God and nature as one, or if they saw nature as a product of God, but they definitely were related. Today, we only see God in things that can't be explained because the Catholic Church took God out of reality when the church saw science as a threat to the doctrines of the church. The word theology used to contain a reference to that which is revealed by nature. Today's definition no longer contains any such reference. That change occurred in the last 100 years.
You say the bible doesn't speak of evolution. I see your point, but if you can't get people to see the truth when so much evidence is available, how would you get them to buy into it when there was no human knowledge of it available back then? And then there is another consideration; scriptures were written from an associative point of view. Modern science is all analytical. That distinction must be taken into view when trying to interpret what they wrote. They saw the creative forces of nature as a "creator". We see them as mathematical models.
John Dunbar 10+
If God is based upon the proper way to conquer nature and ensure our species continuation, then God sits in the opposite sense of what your saying.
When I look at christianity I see a very affective way to control peoples lives. The idea of heaven and hell seems to work well in corralling behavior. Ill grant you that Jesus existed and he was a brilliant man, but I have to say, I believe his words were altered to create a system that allowed for power and control. Believe in me or die, is the feeling I get from christianity, it just doesn't seem to fit with the model of how I would picture Jesus. I just cant imagine any God who punishes or rewards. If you want to call God nature I think that makes sense to a degree, but yahweh just seems like a slave master.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
One issue with treating others as you would like to be treated, is if I killed someone or stole something I wouldn't want to be locked up, but I'm happy to lock up others that do.
Not so sure if we all stopped working and worrying about the future and starting wandering around waiting for the supposedly imminent (for 2,000 year) second coming. My recall is Jesus said the Jewish law still applied. No thanks to many aspects of this.
Who knows what he said or did, assuming a person called Jesus existed, when no one bothered to record it until decades after he died and not much independent evidence. Plenty of opportunity to retrofit. We know some parts of the Gospels in current bible were not in the earliest texts etc. Reading the biblical gospels, except for a few statements, I don't get a sense he was much bothered with non jews.
Roy Bourque 20+
I really like your first paragraph. I live by that philosophy.
Your second paragraph is not how I see it. We learn to work with nature, not conquer it. We will never conquer nature. Nature makes the rules. We learn to live in harmony with it or we suffer for failure to do so.
Your third paragraph is why we must not let others do our thinking for us. I don't believe that Jesus words were altered, I believe that the meaning of Jesus words was manipulated. I don't have a problem with the words in the gospels. I have a problem with how others are interpreting them.
The feeling that you get from Christianity is what organized religion wanted you to get. I am very concerned about that myself. As far as God punishing, I have worked in the industrial field. The power that nature can unleash is unimaginable. If you don't know the rules, the results are unthinkable to what the forces of nature can do to a human. And yet, what you can do when you understand nature is awesome. That is the God that I have come to know.
John Dunbar 10+
Roy you seem to have been intelligent enough to update your beliefs and inject your goodness into the befuddled teachings of the bible. It just strikes me as bizarre that you would want to remain affiliated with a man who taught such gruesome insanity and overall awfulness.
Roy Bourque 20+
"He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"; or "do you understand what I am trying to say to you"?
Overpopulation was one of the most destructive forces of the ancient world. If it didn't lead to starvation, it led to war. The Romans were crucifying hundreds of people in order to force their judgment upon them. That is the world that Jesus came into. That all has to be considered when you are trying to understand what is written.
I do not know of Christian groups that go around castrating themselves as a result of reading the gospels. So to use such an example to cast stones at Jesus is a poor play of words. I have known few Christians who step on each other. I have known several atheists who wouldn't think twice about it. So whom shall I follow?
John Dunbar 10+
Stewart Gault 30+
Firstly if your god is basically quantum mechanics (sorry if this is a straw man it's what I took form "quantum fields") then why not just ditch the word god completely and take the next step towards saying the universe governs itself just fine.
Also where does the uncertainty principal fit into your image of god? would it be your way of saying we can't know the mind of god?
Somewhere you ascribed quantum mechanics to things such as evolution by taking a step form quantum to atomic to chemical and so forth. Quantum mechanics loses it's main principles in the macro due to the uncertainty principle.
And lastly creation, especially human creations could be reduced to our mental evolution allowing us to make more and more complex machines to further our survival and benefit the user.
Roy Bourque 20+
Excellent questions. Let me try to explain.
At the age of nine, I had an experience while meditating on God that tied it in with the most fundamental principles of nature. I didn't know of quantum fields at the time so I couldn't understand the whole experience. But nevertheless, it provided a definition of God in my mind that would become concrete. When I learned of quantum mechanics, I was able to make the connection.
I was in the process of replacing God with quantum mechanics when I had another experience. At the time, I was going to a Navy school that was taxing my limits. I was questioning about what I should do. I had a spiritual experience that took me to a future time without me in it. The spirit said if life does not go on, they why does anything you do now matter? I said, I don't know, and I was very distraught. The spirit said, you need to figure that out, and then the experience faded.
My first wife was the victim of childhood abuse. It would lead her into alcoholism and eventually claim her life. During my marriage with her, I prayed for an answer and was helped by a charismatic Christian who led me through the whole affair. She told me why God had put us together and what the outcome would be. She was right about the outcome, and the rest would become more apparent with time.
I used to think that everything happens by chance. The wrench in the gears of that idea comes from the fact that I had a navy roommate into Tarot card reading that saw my wife's death four years before I even met her.
I have since done a lot of personal research in religion and psychology. I have discovered many things that the ministers never tell you. Whether they know it or not I don't know. But I know things that either they don't know, or don't want you to know. I am inclined to believe it is the former and not the latter. There is a side to religion that few have ever seen. That is why I won't let it go.
Stewart Gault 30+
It seems you share a common idea with a lot of people, that if something has an end to it, then what's the point of it.
A few examples of things which end but have meanings (though maybe not totally 100% comparable to life) dinner, you eventually finish the meal you had but it served it's purpose when it was there. The last glass of water you drank has a similar effect. Celebrating birthdays, weddings etc, the day eventually ends so whats the point in celebrating it? Well because it's fun whilst the celebrations are going on and because they end it doesn't take away from the fun and importance of celebrating such days.
My philosophy on this question is almost the opposite of yours. To me life has a definite end which to me is when we die. Now because of this notion I feel a renewed sense of purpose in life. Because I've a finite amount of time on this planet it means that every thing I do couldn't be more purposeful or meaningful. It means I've got to spend every moment of my life doing what matters to me. It means people in the future could look back and say that was the lfie of stewart gault and he did x y and z and made the world better for it.
Along with that I also find problems with living forever, physically, spiritually or mentally, eternity doesn't appeal to me.
Roy Bourque 20+
We're not as dissimilar as you think. I am not ruled by religion. Although I may see life different than you (as still going on after we die), I still cherish the moment. I don't believe we live forever as an individual. I believe that our spirit lives on, and that we live many lives, each one influenced by the past. If I am to come back to this world, I want to leave it better than I found it.
I am dismayed when I see others being used as pawns by those who live for today at their expense. Yet, I have come to see that it happens on both sides of the fence, so I take no offense to your position. If you care about people, which seems to be what I read in your comments, then that is all that matters to me.
What I am trying to do here is to bridge the gap between evolution and creation without adhering to spontaneous creation or trying to pull the rug out from evolution, and to defend my position on why I feel that way.
Please don't confuse me with a fundamentalist or religious zealot. I am not fond of either one. What I know of religion is not based purely on what I have read. I have questioned everything that I have read, and have had experiences that bias how I have come to see the world. My views on atheists have also changed by my conversations on TED. The ones I have met in the past were detestable to me. But they were the exception to the rule. I have read many good comments from caring people who don't believe that life goes on. If they embrace mutual cooperation, then I have no issue with them.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I like the feedback. Your comments are thought provoking.
Stewart Gault 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
There are plenty of theists who do believe in gods or goddesses and evolution. And lots of variations of this. And one of these variations could be right. E.g.A billion gods could be actively guiding evolution. Or a goddess could have just set off the big bang with our evolution pre-planned to happen without ongoing input. Gods could have created the universe 6000 years ago but made it look much older. Or some gods could have set off the big bang like a role of the dice and just watched to see what appears without humans in mind at all. Or not watched whatever. They could have set off this universe and gone on to create the next. And other options limited only by your imagination.
Actually there could also be little gods driving electrons around atomic nuclei. There could be goddesses living in the centre of the sun, and others making sure the planets stay on their paths. Yet more making gravity work or riding photons.
You can plug supernatural invisible intangible virtually non existent gods and goddesses into nearly everything and and anything you want. But at most only one view could be correct. And they all have a few things in common. No evidence and they are unverifiable. There is no way to distinguish between these scenarios with or without supernatural influence.
You can inject supernatural entities into what seem to be natural processes, or you can rely on the evidence.
While I haven't seen any compelling evidence for any of the thousands of theistic deities and billions of different interpretations, one of them could be right. Or none of them, but there still might be something beyond our imagination.
People are free to believe what they want, but claims about truth are stronger if they have evidence.
Beliefs without evidence are difficult to distinguish if they involve invisible beings. I would also suggest that fantasies no matter how popular do not belong in the science class
Colleen Steen 500+
To accept that these beliefs may overlap, people would have to give up the literal translation of the bible, and that is the piece of the puzzle that seems improbable for some folks at this point in our evolution.
edward long 100+
Mr. Hobbs, read Darwin's Origin of the Species and comapre it to chapters 1 and 2 of the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. You will find no common ground. As Ms. Steen says it would require allegorizing the Holy Bible to also embrace Darwin. And, if I may add, it would require rejecting Darwin to embrace the Holy Bible as it is written. Never the twain shall meet.
Colleen Steen 500+
What I wrote Edward, is pretty clear. Please do not try to manipulate my words.
There are lots of people who believe in god, the bible and evolution. It simply requires an open mind.
edward long 100+
Roy Bourque 20+
You seem to have missed something. Babylonian and Egyptian mythology predated the bible. They speak of a God who destroyed much of humanity because of rebellion, but spared a remnant. This is absolutely in harmony with What Darwin tried to tell us, that nature creates far more offspring than can possibly survive. The stories of the bible are no different. They have many parallels and followed in their wake. Just look at the story of Noah, of the plagues of Egypt, of the sons of Korah, at the wars that God instituted, at famine and disease established by God! Is this not Darwinian survival written in the word of God? Just because it uses different terminology doesn't mean it doesn't mean the same thing.
John Dunbar 10+
edward long 100+
Mr. Darwin's Achilles heel is Abiogenesis. It is there that he stands in opposition to the Holy Bible (Genesis chapters 1 and 2).
Darwin provided the basis for what would become the Godless cosmogony. Whether he so intended I cannot say.
I do not see natural selection over eons of time from a common ancestor in the Holy Bible. Instead I see God creating each "kind" of mature, fully-developed and genetically unique living creature and bringing them to Adam for naming. Evolution is not simply different terminolgy describing the same thing as the Bible. It is fundamentally and consistently in opposition to the Holy Bible. Some choose to believe one book and some the other. If it is OK, I choose the Holy Bible. Thank you Roy.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
To claim one interpretation of god created them so that they could write their own conflicting beginning story is kind of circular. It just as easy to say the Caanite tribes that split off to become the Hebrews were created by Maduk and then they created their own false mythologies.
You might take the bible as being the absolute authority, but I am yet to hear a reasonable rationale to support it over science and many other religious texts. Of course you are welcome to believe it. Interested to hear why if you feel like it.
Not knowing the answer to how life got started does not undo evolution. Asserting you have an answer without reasonable proof also does undo evolution. As far as I know, no humans have a credible detailed understanding of how life got started. It was most likely 3 or so billion years ago so not an easy one to answer.
I note beginnings and endings don't fit well with the concept of eternity.
I don't really have a confident idea of what time is beyond the mundane, how it works, and what relevance it has to before a big bang if that is what happened. Are we stepping into infinite timelines but are only aware of this one. Like to hear the views of someone qualified.
Colleen Steen 500+
What I wrote is clear, which you acknowledge, so it serves no useful purpose to manipulate my words to fit YOUR beliefs.
Again....my clear statement..."To accept that these beliefs may overlap, people would have to give up the literal translation of the bible, and that is the piece of the puzzle that seems improbable for some folks at this point in our evolution."
There are many people in our world Edward, who believe in a god, accept the bible as a story, written and interpreted by several people, at various times throughout history, which depicts interesting conditions of the times in which it was written and translated.
There are also many people in our world Edward, who believe there are some valuable life guides contained in the bible. Actually, I believe this as well...do unto others...love thy neighbor...things like that, which we find in many written words, in addition to the bible.
Many of these same people believe in evolution Edward, so to argue that they cannot co-exist is silly.
In the minds and life experiences of some people they DO exist Edward, and are NOT "mutually exclusive", as you insist.
You are still trying to manipulate my words, and I do not appreciate it Edward. Thanks for your consideration to this matter, which is important to me, and to the conversation.
edward long 100+
The fact that you are correct in pointing out that "many people believe in evolution" does not have any bearing on the nature of evolution. Many people believed the Earth was flat but it is not flat. Just because many people believe something does not make it true. Your entire position on this rests on the premise that if many people believe something it must be true and it is "silly" to deny it. Many people believed Hitler (see Godwin's Law) was temporariy relocating Jews for labor purposes and would return them after the war. Many people believed Pluto was a planet. Many people believed Disco was good music. Please accompany any subsequent accusations of manipulation with specific examples. I am innocent until proven guilty. Honor the burden of proof. I wish to yield to you the last word on this.I promise not to respond further if you let me depart free of accusations .
Colleen Steen 500+
I agree...just because many people believe something does not make it true...well said Edward.
My entire position on this DOES NOT rest on the premise that if many people believe something it must be true, and if you have read and/or assimilated the information provided in my comments at all Edward, you would know this.
YOU believe that many people embrace YOUR beliefs, so it must be true. I believe that many people (including me, and others who have responded on this and other threads) have different beliefs, which I have stated many times.
Many people, you included, believe in the literal translation of the bible, and will not move from your beliefs. I respect that you have YOUR beliefs Edward. Many people (like me) have different beliefs, and we/I are open minded about possibilities, which you seem not to be.
The only thing that is needed to see manipulation of my words, are YOUR words, which are apparent.
edward long 100+
Roy Bourque 20+
"In the beginning" becomes obscure in the light of God having no beginning and no end. According to that phrase, there is an infinite amount of time predating "in the beginning" of Genesis. So what does it really mean? There is a beginning and an end to all things, so every era has a beginning. But it is not THE ABSOLUTE BEGINNING, it is the beginning of the present era.
The bible doesn't speak of evolution, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Adam and Eve were created from the dust of the ground. So were you and me, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a process involved for Adam and Eve just because it isn't stated as such. It doesn't say anything about how God created Adam and Eve, so to deny that there was a process is based on assumption, not fact.
Darwin never wanted a Godless cosmology. He feared that such a view might come to light and delayed his book, but went ahead with it because others were going to do the same, and he wanted his views to be known as well. His father wanted him to be a minister. He chose to let nature speak for itself, but never abandoned his own belief in God.
Many deny God today based on the modern definition. God is supreme existence, not "being" in a human sense. But the modern definition of God depicts "him" as a male deity, which is wholly incorrect. God has no sexual gender, has no specific location, has no specific form, cannot be defined by any person, place, or thing, and is denied by those who see God presented as such.
It is OK that you choose the bible. I choose it too, but do not deny evolution. To compare evolution with scripture is comparing apples to oranges (figuratively speaking. The one is analytical and the other is associative. They use different brain functions. So to deny one in light of the other would be like disputing art and music with theories on gravity and inertia. It doesn't compute.
edward long 100+
Stewart Gault 30+
edward long 100+
You are right to point out the importance of knowing whether a statement is using the literal meaning of words, or the vernacular form. Science is precise, conversation is not. Thank you!
Stewart Gault 30+
Now biological evolution is true happens everyday and we'll soon die of superbugs created by evolutionary processes. Whether or not macro evolution caused speciation is only really up for debate within religious circles, there's just too much evidence of evolution to refute it for the macro. Unless of course you start throwing bronze age texts at science then you make a fool of yourself.
Now cosmic evolution is a completely different thing to biological evolution, it doesn't incorporate the same processes, physicists just use it because generally it means change over time, without using the biological meaning, so they say galaxies "evolved" but all they really mean is eventually gravity pulled matter together and the universe started to take shape.
Evolution happens culturally and socially as well, this is how we've adapted morals, music, art basically everything, but in the sense of change over time not biological evolution, don't get them mixed up. We've evolved mentally as well, we've gone from throwing rocks at each other to launching Mars Rovers and visiting other worlds.
And Darwin didn't touch cosmology because they still believed in steady state theory, so it had no need of evolution.
So, biological evolution= change in genes over time
common everyday use of evolution=change over time
Also not beliefs, beliefs are based on faith and faith is the denial of evidence so that belief can be preserved.
edward long 100+
Please share the exact definition of the word "evolution" as you use it herein.
By the way, faith is not a denial OF evidence, faith IS evidence. . . of things not seen.
If we use the word "evolution" as a simple synonymn for change (social, biological, genetic, cosmic, etc.) then we create confusion by using it also as the name of the vastly complex scientific theory of the same name. Let's all get on the same page.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Evolution relates to life going from less adapted to more adapted via natural selection etc.
Not an explanation for the beginning of life and the universe, or how to make a good cup of tea.
If people want to build evolution into part of a broader world view that is fine as long as they don't distort what the theory of evolution is. But I get what Edward is saying. Just like Science vs Religion does not mean they are the same sort of thing.
My favourite is "you are saying we evolved from monkey's". This not only misrepresents evolution but ignores the physical similarities we have with other apes, mammals, vertebrates etc.
Re: Faith is evidence of things not seen. Now that's a clever use of words, but doesn't make sense, and is probably a misuse of the English language. Perhaps if you said faith is used as a substitute for evidence for when you don't have evidence. Faith is anything but evidence. Believing in something is not evidence in support of the belief. I suggest they are not interchangeable words if used in a way consistent with their meaning.
Stewart Gault 30+
I've already defined evolution for you, biological evolution is the change in genes over time. Evolution is change over time in general. Now why we use it for describing the cosmos and culture change is because of this, evolution goes in a specific direction (99% of the time) it goes from simple to complex. So that's why it's used for cosmic evolution because it adds a direction to the change, merely saying change means it could be any direction but evolution makes it specific.
Now faith as evidence is the most stupid thing I've ever heard of, I have faith in unicorns, so there's the evidence they exist, ehh no. Doesn't work like that. I have faith that a higher power told me to kill that boy your honour (to a judge) No it doesn't work. If faith is evidence of the unseen then just about everything exists then. Please tell me you now see the horrible flaw in your logic of faith being evidence for the unseen. Because intrinsically that would lead to everything being correct and nothing being wrong. I have faith dogs dont exist, it's statements like that with your logic just make the world a dumber place.
edward long 100+
Stewart Gault 30+
Roy Bourque 20+
I do not think that they didn't have a clue (although this is true as far as modern science is concerned), they had another way of seeing the world that was based on spiritual matters. Have you ever noticed that animals seem to have a closer connection with nature than humans do? When the tsunami hit Indonesia in 2004, the animals knew what to do. It was the humans who were caught off-guard because we have lost touch with nature. We understand the world of modern science. We do not understand what the ancient people knew about spiritual connections with nature. Times have changed, and we need to change with the times. But I find seeking answers to ancient thought to be a great mystery worth knowing. There is a book by Manly P. Hall called "The Secret Teachings of All Ages. It is mind-boggling what is in there. Some find it too overwhelming. I find it very intriguing. Of course, it requires that you go beyond what the churches are teaching. So, there is an issue there that is in need of repair. Modern religion is far outdated and barely scratches the surface of where it has come from. I like diving into the water, not just floating on the surface.
Roy Bourque 20+
You are right that evolution appears to be a Godless means of creation. My problem is how the word God is being defined; as a anthropomorphic being. God is not anthropomorphic, God is the primordial soup itself, but evolution proclaims that the primordial soup is deaf, dumb, and blind. I know that isn't so. The primordial soup is governed by forces that channel its energy in specific ways. Religion deals with one aspect of it (morals and ethics), whereas science deals with another aspect of it (the nature of structure). You cannot compare one to the other. You ARE comparing apples to oranges when you try to compare the bible with science. To say that if one is true, the other is false is only true when you take it purely literal. We all know that snakes don't talk. And we all know that fruit does not endow knowledge to the one consuming it. To take these verses purely literal is to ignore the implications of what is being said; that there is a symbolic meaning to what is being written. I have no problem with evolution, nor do I have a problem with what is written in the scriptures. But I understand the difference, and I see through the misconceptions that both have embraced to defend themselves against the other.
edward long 100+
Stewart Gault 30+
Roy Bourque 20+
Using your very same passages, "and by him all things consist"; if you break down matter to its most basic form, it comes to quantum fields. They are what is doing the creating. They are the source from which all things come and back to which they go. They are everywhere and they are invisible.
I don't see this as an alternative to the Holy bible, because as I have said they are apples to oranges. Science explains how quantum fields have developed over time to create the complex structures that we see today. We are now involved in the process by creating vast structures of our industrial age using the same principles of nature. But as is evident by many news reports, we tend to lose control of what we are doing because we have forgotten the creator. You can't just replace one with the other, you have to blend the two together; use creativity for righteousness.
The primordial soup was many eons prior to Genesis. It isn't addressed in Genesis because Genesis was dealing with the issues of an advanced civilization; establishing an understanding of right and wrong in current times. How it all came to be was not the issue. That some power greater than humanity was the issue and was not to be ignored. Nature can provide untold blessings when you choose to follow its rules. Nature can also unleash deadly forces in human aggression when you ignore its rules. Humanity is still dealing with these issues, and letting nature speak for itself is is where the rules of how things work are found. It doesn't replace the bible in my way of thinking, but it is a cherished supplement not to be cast aside because of differences.
Stewart Gault 30+
Stewart Gault 30+
And teaching that the Loch Ness monster is real is really silly, I am an evolutionist and one of my favourite facts is that if you want to see a dinosaur just watch birds, they're merely evolved dinosaurs with many having almost identical skeletons to ancient dinosaurs. Oh and crocodiles and sloths are just smaller versions of their older selves.
Peter Law 30+
The reason creationists don't accept evolution is because they don't accept the 'evidence' for it. Darwin showed with his finches how creatures adapt to their environment through natural selection. Sometimes a long beak was an advantage, sometimes a short one. Same with the peppered moths, the exposed ones got eaten. We now know that each creature has a bank of different possibilities built into their genetics to help them adapt.
Darwin however extrapolated this ability & reasoned; quite logically; that given time these changes could eventually give rise to a completely different creature. Also, going backwards, that the same mechanisms could explain the rise of very simple organisms into those of today. It is this 'macro' evolution that gets stuck in the creationist craw. There is little or no empirical evidence for it. All we have is the opinions of scientists. Within these opinions we have the whole gambit from those who believe it as a fact, to those who don't believe it at all.
Many Christians find the biblical scenario more at one with the material facts than the idea that we all somehow emerged by chance through some, as yet unknown, mechanical process.
The Loch Ness Monster has little to do with anything. It is assumed that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. A similar assumption was made for the Coelacanth until it turned up alive &.well in fishing nets. There are hundreds of examples of creatures found in deep rock which are still alive today, why not dinosaurs? There are many credible dragon legends, & many accurate depictions, & models of known dinosaurs drawn by people who had no other way of knowing about them unless they had lived with them.
Creationists just ask awkward questions, that's all.
:-)
John Dunbar 10+
Peter what can you do to circumnavigate the evidence shown here. This certainly disputes the claim of the earths creation 6,000 years ago.
Peter Law 30+
For every website there is an equal & opposite website.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/cavemen-different
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Not one modern mammal found with dinosaur fossils - because they hadn't evolved yet. If they ever find a rabbit with a T-Rex then we have a problem.
If there were T-Rex around before the flood, you'd think they would have been terrorising human populations and mentioned in the bible.
Not one cave painting dated back 30,000 years showing a dinosaur.
Not one statue or figurine reasonably resembling any dinosaur species.
What fantasy has been created to explain the disappearance of the marine dinosaurs?
Not one ounce of evidence that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans and plenty that they didn't. Did unicorns miss out on the ark, centaurs, griffin, hydra, chimera, gargoyles?
You pick one mythical creature that is reptilian looking and this is your argument that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans. Its not a good argument.
Some sharks also have remained similar looking to their ancestors, some less so. Same with cockroaches etc. Single cell lifeforms still exist. This is entirely consistent with evolution.
The mechanism for evolution via natural selection is very well understood. There are questions still about the origin of life. To just jump to all kinds created, with flawed bodies (crappy eyesight etc), simply because evolution is relatively slow compared to when the stories in the bible were first told is a weak argument.
Many believe the bible stories. Pity they don't fit the evidence. Pity they twist some observations like dinosaur fossils into something that fits their beliefs as per the fanciful dragon story. Pity they misrepresent observations like species that resemble their ancient ancestors and reject much.
Re: "We now know that each creature has a bank of different possibilities built into their genetics to help them adapt." this is not my understanding of what science shows.
Stewart Gault 30+
Megalodon= sharks
Big crocs= little crocs
Most small dinosaurs= modern day birds
I felt like crying when I went on answering genesis. Especially on the flood and ark page.
It's like it's straight from the mouth of Kent Hovind. Just realised how this answers the question as to why creationism and evolution can get along together. Like I said earlier get a word for evolution with a guiding hand and give the believers that, but as to creationism, it's just plain stupid, and I don't normally play people's ideas down but this really really deserves it.
1)It provides no evidence other than a bronze age book
2)Has no evidence that the writer of the book didn't just make it all up
3)Refutes the evidence evolution has merely because the bible says differently.
Like if you're going to be such a literalist on this book why aren't you stoning homosexuals? Why do you have a job? Sure Jesus said leave your jobs follow me, think not for the morrow, know that your God will provide. And if you dare say you don't stone gays because we've "moved on" why can't you move on from believing in a young earth with no evidence!
Peter Law 30+
Hopefully now you get a feel for why creation & evolution can't live together.
Thanks Guys
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Some of it is interpreting evidence differently or just ignoring it like the fossil record, or dating techniques.
I see the tree of life, the evolutionary threads that connect apes, then mammals, then vertebrae etc, every with DNA. Somehow creationists see this as design efficiency.
I see crappy eyes, a useless appendix, a nerve that goes from the brain under the heart and back from our marine days before we had necks, and creationists see gods perfect creations tainted by sin etc.
I see a transition of hominid ancestors. Creationists see extinct ape, ape, ape, ape - man.
I see we share so much with apes and animals not just in biology, but in our instincts, drives, functionality, group dynamics. We sure look like apes and interact like big brained apes. Even the sex act and aggression is so animal.
I see light from galaxies that has taken billions of year to reach us, effectively looking back in time, and creationists have some explanation for this.
Some very creative people have come up with the creationist apologetics. And people want to believe and fit things with this belief. And a powerful deity could be used to explain nearly everything even a 6000 year old planet looking 4 billion years old.
And I guess they criticise scientists for misinterpreting the data or some deliberate conspiracy. And fitting the evidence to what we want to believe.
But I honestly believe an objective look at the evidence supports an evolutionary and naturalistic old universe.
Heather White 10+
It is ironic that militant atheists understand that the process of evolution takes many generations and yet are intolerant of the slow pace of spiritual evolution. Take the Church of England as an example - over the past decades the issues of women and homosexuals in the priesthood have been highly controversial - threatening to split the church. And yet, this change has occurred in a fraction of a blink on an eye and people of faith should be praised for facing these issues - even if some individuals within the church can't, as yet, accept them. Further, I am sure the proportion of misogynists and homophobes is similar within the atheist community as any other group of people. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
I believe that atheists actually make poor scientist because they believe they are correct - just like religious fundamentalists of all faiths who fix their belief at the time of their leader or read "as fact" the myths of their texts. Atheists limit their imagination to rational though, reason and logic and so place their minds in a straight jacket. Richard Dawkins has pasted himself so far into this corner he is as bad as the worst, most extreme Creationist.
The best scientists are either agnostic or hold a non fundamental spiritual belief. Because they have not closed off their imagination nor limit possibilities they are free to think of possibilities beyond our current limits. True people of faith accept and wonder at the findings of science - or are indeed, like myself, scientists.
Stewart Gault 30+
Now as to atheists making bad scientists that's quite a dig, 87% of the scientists within the National Academy of Science reject a personal god, now they're the best of the best and the 13% who do accept one aren't even religious they just think there could be something more. Another thing, being an atheist means you've considered X,Y and Z and com to the conclusion of no God. This does not intrinsically mean that every time they come to a conclusion in the future they think they'll be right.
Trust me, my imagination is not closed off, I hope and a wish that someday I get to have a great job in biology and see what I can do, but just because I've closed my mind on some things does not mean I'd be a bad scientist. Once again, a china tea pot around Saturn style argument, there is a very very very small chance one may be there, but I don't think there is one, now does this make me a bad scientist, no. It just means I've weighed up evidence and come to a conclusion, I may be wrong but there's no evidence in it's favor. As the saying goes, if you,re too open minded your brain will fall out.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Are all atheists the same?
It is wrong to assert all atheists lack imagination. They just apply this imagination minus one small idea - gods. And if there was evidence for any god or goddess I would believe.
I suggest many have a sceptical outlook on gods faeries, ghosts and goblins. Others might still believe in reincarnation or an afterlife or astrology, just not gods.
Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. It is not necessarily 100% certainty. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know whether there are deities or not but don't believe in any because of lack of evidence.
Anyone claiming absolute certainty is a bit suspect in my view. But not all claims are equal and conflicting claims can not both be correct.
I suggest science has worked better when natural explanations are sort.
Do you have any evidence to indicate atheists make poor scientists because they follow the evidence? Or just an opinion?
Some scientific ideas, art whatever is amazingly creative and intuitive, done by atheists.
Atheists can meditate and explore their consciousness, dream and hope. They are human you know.
Intuition has its place. So does personal experience but when you are trying to understand what works and why or make claims about why your interpretation is correct then evidence is what separates opinion from facts.
I agree with keeping an open mind but not to the point of relying on your own intuitive beliefs and speculative assumptions about what causes those warm fuzzy feelings, and why life and the universe is the way it is.
The reason we have so many conflicting different religions and spiritual beliefs is not actually good advertising that the intuitive or dogmatic supernaturalist approach is very reliable.
Heather White 10+
Personally it does not bother me if someone is an atheist, but just like fundamental people of faith, I dislike the arrogance of being told that their belief is the only correct way to think, feel and live. In that regard "militant atheists" have joined the raving fundamental cohort of the Ultra Faith groups.
I must admit I get equally turned off by some New Age hippies, but I just walk away - I don't ridicule them out of respect for their human right to choose what to believe.
All my response is my opinion. I am a Quaker and a Humanist - I believe in some higher force beyond human perception. I know its not popular to stand up for people of faith in TED - The fundamentalist can stand up for themselves as can the militant atheists - it's the quiet people with a deep connection to their own spirituality who get chewed up by both sides.
I approve of Alan de Botton's approach to atheism (TED Talk - Atheism 2.0) in which is encourages atheists to enjoy the fruits of faith - the beautiful architecture of our cathedrals, stain glass windows, music, inward reflection, meditation, stories, myths, poetry etc. He advocates atheism with a generous sprit.
Stewart Gault 30+
Best example, scientology, you can give them what respect you want but I'm going to laugh at them until I can't breath, a super alien warlord put an alien species into a volcano which then erupted and spread their souls over earth and they eventually became humans. That is what you get "revealed" to you when you're a fully operating thetan after a very handsome donation of I think $200,000, if I remember correctly. Or another example, Mormonism, the Bible should get itself copyrighted cause they'd make a fortune taking the mormon bible to court. You know it's just incomprehensible how anyone could actually think that Native Indians were the lost tribes of Israel. It's the same if you believe in Odin, Thor, Isis, Osiris, Aesculapius, Poseidon, Medusa, flying spaghetti monster (although it's a joke it's a good example). The outright stupid should be removed from society.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
A lot of people are turned off when they hear an atheist say "I don't believe stuff like this without evidence - because I'm not an idiot". I saw that on a you tube debate. I don't think that sort of comment is very helpful, but even saying the obvious points politely can offend.
I sort of understand a level of frustration in atheism. At the heart of it is pointing out there are and have been millions of conflicting spiritual and religious interpretations - some melding with science. Some twisting it. And most of them come down to unverifiable beliefs that are almost counter intuitive. Would the creator of the universe send her final divine revelation to a guy in a cave. Would he rely on a single man in the middle east to give the good news to all of us and not write any of what he said down until decades later. Xenu. Golden Tablets and seeing stones.
I guess many atheists are not trying to win a popularity contest and can be a bit rude. This is very different to current violent acts by the more extreme religious. This is very different to undermining the separation of church and state. Atheism is not driving all sorts of backward medieval morality and sexism and homophobia. But we can be rude.
On the argument side it comes down to atheism being probably the most accurate position. The religious and spiritual comes down to faith and speculative personal interpretations.
Most Atheists I know do not say they know there is absolutely no supernatural. Some point out that science is showing reality is getting pretty strange. They leave the door open for new evidence but at this stage think low chance of any of the manmade religions being correct. And ask for evi
I also tend towards a humanist view. Not sure about the underlying force thats all.
No issue if some atheists want some of the experience and consolations of religion without god. Personally I don't need it. Thanks
John Dunbar 10+
To not ridicule faith because its a persons choice to believe what they would like, is to be happily unaware of what has come about due to religion. Would you say its ok to allow someone to choose to believe without questioning that the holocaust was Jewish propaganda and never occurred? Would you say it was ok to believe without being questioned, that woman should never be allowed to read and if this occurs you must throw acid in the woman's face? Would you say its ok to believe, without confrontation, that murder is necessary if apostasy occurs. Would you say its ok to believe, without debate, that homosexuals are going to burn in hell? The list goes on and on and on and on. These are all beliefs that have been given rise to by religion. Yes, you can believe whatever it is you want to believe, I don't think it makes for very good science, but nonetheless as soon as you start trying to make your beliefs the law of the land or tearing down the fabric of a decent society I have a problem. The amount of control exerted by religion is scary. If you can't deduce enough evidence of the modern problem with religion then look at history and it should be apparently obvious that religion has more to do with control and power than setting anybody free. Atheists are simply trying to bring these facts to light.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Also, the theory of evolution is all about things not needing creation, or intent, or even guidelines.
Christians are trying desperately to hold on to one of the worst attempt of explaining the cosmos. In the age of information, that's a brave thing to do.
Barry Palmer 50+